ABSTRACT
Purpose@#Acute respiratory viral infections pose significant morbidity and mortality, making it essential to diagnose respiratory viral infections rapidly. In this study, the diagnostic efficacy of the Luminex xTAG Respiratory Virus Panel (RVP) FAST v2 test was evaluated on respiratory viral infections. @*Materials and Methods@#Information was retrieved from electronic databases, including Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, and Cochrane Library, for systematic review. Studies that fulfilled predefined inclusion criteria were included. After the extraction of information, statistical software was utilized for quality evaluation, data analysis, and assessment of publication bias. @*Results@#Eighty groups in fourfold tables from nine articles were included to perform statistical analyses. Therein, the mean specificity and mean sensitivity of Luminex xTAG RVP FAST v2 test for the detection of respiratory viral infections were 0.99 (0.98–0.99) and 0.88 (0.87–0.90), respectively. Additionally, the negative and positive likelihood ratios were 0.14 (0.11–0.19) and 87.42 (61.88– 123.50), respectively. Moreover, the diagnostic odds ratio and area under the curve of summary receiver operating characteristic were 714.80 and 0.9886, respectively. @*Conclusion@#The Luminex xTAG RVP FAST v2 test could be a reliable and rapid diagnostic method for multiple respiratory viral infections.
ABSTRACT
Purpose@#Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the pathogen of coronavirus disease 2019. Diagnostic methods based on the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) have been developed to detect SARSCoV-2 rapidly. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of CRISPR for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. @*Materials and Methods@#Studies published before August 2021 were retrieved from four databases, using the keywords “SARS-CoV-2” and “CRISPR.” Data were collected from these publications, and the sensitivity, specificity, negative likelihood ratio (NLR), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated. The summary receiver operating characteristic curve was plotted for analysis with MetaDiSc 1.4. The Stata 15.0 software was used to draw Deeks’ funnel plots to evaluate publication bias. @*Results@#We performed a pooled analysis of 38 independent studies shown in 30 publications. The reference standard was reverse transcription-quantitative PCR. The results indicated that the sensitivity of CRISPR-based methods for diagnosis was 0.94 (95% CI 0.93–0.95), the specificity was 0.98 (95% CI 0.97–0.99), the PLR was 34.03 (95% CI 20.81–55.66), the NLR was 0.08 (95% CI 0.06– 0.10), and the DOR was 575.74 (95% CI 382.36–866.95). The area under the curve was 0.9894. @*Conclusion@#Studies indicate that a diagnostic method based on CRISPR has high sensitivity and specificity. Therefore, this would be a potential diagnostic tool to improve the accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 detection.